I despise religion but yeah, I'm going to need some proof. It seems to me that this is the work of one individual (and a few willing idiots). I can't condemn a whole religion for one thing like this.

That's usually how it goes. The followers of most religions are usually just the victims. It's the leaders that need to be held under a microscope.

Religion CAN be a force for positive change, it's just that it's far too easy for someone in power to steer the followers down a hurtful path.

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.

I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.

It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.

Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.

If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97
No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

When he mashed his finger into that slab of microscopic needles, I was just imagining all the penetration going down... microscopically.

Yowsa.>> ^jubuttib:

"Scientists don't yet know if they're toxic."
... It's carbon. Scientists are quite well aware how toxic carbon is. It's abrasive qualities if inhaled and other such considerations are another thing though.

For someone (me) who learned that Pluto was a planet, then at some point after I left school, heard it wasn't (and without any explanation), this little piece of basic info brings it all into focus.

Why did it take so long for someone to tell us clearly what was going on?

Once we leave school, we're left in a black hole of learning with only our own microscopes to tunnel-vision our way through the facts and see the world around us. I yearn to return to school again

Are you trying to get me to self link? All right. I'll try to recreate this, but it will have to wait until I go to the grocery store again. We had pork chops last night, even, but they were the frozen variety.

I want fresh off the shelf pork chops for this. And I'll have to buy some Coke! Glorious excuse for it.

And why the fuck are you talking to me in third person? It's freaking me out.
>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.

You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)
If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.
Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.
UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

>> ^UsesProzac:

>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.


You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)

If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.

Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.

UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

I guess it depends on what you are looking to accomplish. Webcam images will be small and not necessarily the highest resolution. If you need cheap, you probably know that already. I'm not sure that chasing a 35mm SLR lens will help you achieve "cheap." Some of the lenses alone for a dSLR like what Critical_d mentioned are (awesome! but) $400+ and only produce a 1:1 ratio image. There are plenty of actual microscopes on ebay under $100. Or you can even find digital "toy" microscopes that actually work pretty well new for not much more.

Is this the kind of thing you are thinking of building?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/715240-REG/Avangard_Optics_AN_E500_AN_E500_eScope_500x_USB.html

I found this: http://eosdoc.com/jlcalc/, but I don't really find it intuitive to use.

I am trying to make a cheap microscope with the webcam and macro lens. I know there are USB webcams out there. But the lens quality and field of view are pretty limited. I thought a macro lens might provide an excellent solution.

Not to pick nits, but there wasn't much of a "subcellular epic" in this video. Microscopic, yes, but almost everything was multicellular, except for a few protozoa at the end.

Still, beautiful and nicely set to the tunez.

>> ^Encumberance:

Anyone who has to get a Top Secret security clearance knows how much info they demand. Then the FBI follows up on that info with interviews and fact checking. I could not get a clearance if I lied about one thing. The president is put under a microscope by the security agencies of the US. He would not even be allowed near the oval office if he did not check out. I mean really.


but youre forgetting the FBI NSA and the CIA are all in on it! ANARCHY ANARCHY

Anyone who has to get a Top Secret security clearance knows how much info they demand. Then the FBI follows up on that info with interviews and fact checking. I could not get a clearance if I lied about one thing. The president is put under a microscope by the security agencies of the US. He would not even be allowed near the oval office if he did not check out. I mean really.

We are capable of processing more than one thing at a time, also people are not obligated to only consider "serious" issues every waking moment of their life. We'd all commit suicide.

>> ^VoodooV:

...But the argument just seems selfish in the perspective of larger concerns...
>> ^messenger:
FWIW, I was the one who sifted the Trayvon martin videos here, so at least I'm contributing to both sides. I guess I'm surprised that Sifters would be disinclined to accept a mathematical fact about a number. That's like just "disagreeing" with relativity because you can't picture it in your mind even though it's been proven to hold on all but the tiniest microscopic levels.>> ^VoodooV:
do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

Because it truly doesn't matter to anyone other than a mathematician or a physicist.....or people who like to argue on internet message boards.

.999... either equals one, or it equals a number absurdly close to one. It just does not matter in our practical lives.

Don't get me wrong, the scientist in me loves stuff like this. But the argument just seems selfish in the perspective of larger concerns. I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider. Like income inequality, there is a HUGE gap between the smartest of us, and the average citizen. I feel we should be closing that gap, instead of indulging the intellectual 1 percent.

>> ^messenger:

FWIW, I was the one who sifted the Trayvon martin videos here, so at least I'm contributing to both sides. I guess I'm surprised that Sifters would be disinclined to accept a mathematical fact about a number. That's like just "disagreeing" with relativity because you can't picture it in your mind even though it's been proven to hold on all but the tiniest microscopic levels.>> ^VoodooV:
do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.

FWIW, I was the one who sifted the Trayvon martin videos here, so at least I'm contributing to both sides. I guess I'm surprised that Sifters would be disinclined to accept a mathematical fact about a number. That's like just "disagreeing" with relativity because you can't picture it in your mind even though it's been proven to hold on all but the tiniest microscopic levels. [edit: I mean relativity, not 0.999..., which holds perfectly always.]>> ^VoodooV:

do a google search. It's been argued forever. Only thing it proves is how far we'll go to argue ridiculous things and the fucked up priorities of humanity.
we'll argue .999... for forever (or infinitely...zing!) but try and solve things like why kids like Trayvonn Martin still get senselessly shot or try and solve how we can take care all of our citizens regardless of income level. Ehh, we'll get around to it sometime.
It reveals just how truly absurd this shit is.